Thoughts on my $900 future desktop

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

ConfusedGamer123

Honorable
Feb 15, 2013
42
0
10,530
Ok so i'm planning on building a desktop for around $900 (without monitor) - http://pcpartpicker.com/p/JVyj - So i just want to know if you guys think it will be a good build or not or what to improve on it. I'm not sure about what PSU to get or how many watts. I will be overclocking my CPU and maybe my GPU. I'll be using the computer for some gaming at 1080p (on games like BF3, GTA, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider), and other random stuff like web browsing and homework etc. I'm also not sure if going with the 7950 would be worth it or should i just get a 7870 tahiti or something. I'm new to computer building and I've just been doing research before i buy, so if anyone could look at the build and give me advice on what to do it would be very helpful.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
So you're saying that going with AMD would be better in my case. Should i go with the FX-8350 or the 6300? With the 8350 i'll have to cut back a little by getting less storage or a worse case or something, but if i go with the 6300 i can keep the build i was thinking about. Which option do you think would be better?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wow, this went on long after I went to bed. Confused, you said you want to overclock. On the budget you've set the only choice is AMD. I gave you advice based on what I've read. In every unbiased publication, Intel is core for core and clock for clock faster than AMD with less power draw. Games illustrate this difference more than any other application because even the most heavily threaded games aren't using more than 4 cores. In this scenario Intel wins almost every time. I have also seen publications that have gone after strictly CPU bottlenecks (ie where the graphics hardware has more headroom than the CPU can use) and AMD turns out lower top end framerates due to hitting the ceiling sooner.

I am an enthusiast to the extreme, I spend a good part of every day (especially when I'm away at work) reading reviews (Tom's, HardOCP, AnandTech, PC Per, Tweaktown, Maximum PC, Guru 3D, X-Bit Labs, etc) and none of them are saying anything different. Now if it were one site contrasting all the rest, then I would take that one with a grain of salt, or I would attempt to distill what they were doing differently to arrive at their results. That isn't the case. The trick to getting accurate information? Take it from many sources, not just the source that fits with your agenda or beliefs.

Let me rephrase my last POST because I made it sound like I thought that AMD is junk and I really don't believe that. What I meant to say is that at their price points, the performance isn't compelling enough for me to lower my standards. I would rather spend a little extra money to have something that doesn't use as much power and performs better. Also in my experience, I've always found AMD chipsets (and thus motherboards) to be a little more quirky and finicky. However that wouldn't stop me from buying AMD if they had something compelling. I always root for AMD, they're the underdog, and I'm a sucker for the underdog. But I spend with my head not my heart and my head says right now that Intel is the better buy. I think AMD's A series APU's are a very compelling buy for anyone looking for a well rounded home and/or office PC where a discrete graphics card is out of the question. The integrated graphics in those are a fantastic value.

Now I relinquish my soap box.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I would say the 6300 is pretty close to the 7950. I'm sure it wouldn't bottleneck too much. Maybe like a couple of frames lost.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Techgeek, we only really thought AMD would be a better choice because of how it would perform in the future. Yes games right now and in the past only use 2-4 cores, but since now games can start using more cores, because of the new consoles that are now using more cores, games will now use more than 4 cores ultimately making AMD look more favorable. I agree Intel isn't a bad option, but in order to get good performance from Intel i'd have to spend more money to get performance that may not consist through future games with more cores. I'm sorta planning on the game benchmarks to favor the AMD processors because of the more cores that they have over Intel, and in games like Crisis 3 that are using more cores it shows that AMD is slowly getting better performance than the Intel.

I'm planning on having this computer for a while and i want to get the most bang for my buck. Also the Intel socket is not continuing into the next generation, but AMD is so then if i decided to upgrade later i wouldn't have to get an all new motherboard. So if you could give me a better build in your opinion for $900 it would be appreciated. I'm not trying to only focus on one source (even though it looks like it) i just want the best build for my money and i don't know what to believe in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You got it spot on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok now should i go with a 7870 or a 7950? I don't know what i'll be doing in the future because i haven't really tried PC gaming before, but i'm not sure if i'll upgrade to get another 7870 or 7950 in the future. Because if i get another one or the other in the future than it will affect what PSU i get now. So i'm not sure what to get and if there will be a considerable difference between the two depending on what i get.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My rule of thumb is: get the most card I can afford now. Spending less now with the idea of adding another card later is a gamble. Multi-GPU systems bring weird problems (micro-stutter, compatibility, unexplained crashes). Performance is never guaranteed either, some games don't get multi-GPU support, or it gets it but way after the game is released. I had a GeForce 295GTX which is essentially SLI on a single card and some games ran great, others had micro-stutter and others still had no benefit, and some I had to disable multi-GPU so the game would run without crashing. You are going with ATI-AMD route, and even though I love ATI-AMD, they are much slower at driver revisions much less CrossFire profiles. When it comes to drivers nVidia is much better than ATI, and I'm not saying that to start a flame war, I own ATI now, and I've owned many of both in the past.

So ultimately, I am advising you to plan for a single GPU system. If later you decide to go multi-GPU, you'll still have enough power to play those games that don't support CrossFire.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


So i pretty much have a max GPU budget around $300, so would you recommend a 7950 or some other nVidia card or something, i've just heard that the 7950 was better so i was planning on getting that but i'm not %100 sure if that's the best option for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I have the HD7950 (actually the XFX Radeon HD 7950 Double D Black Edition) and I like it. I have kind of fallen out of gaming all the time a few years back, but I still get my game on occasionally.

ATI/AMD vs. nVidia is a tough one. When I bought this card, if I'd had a little extra money to spend I would have gone with the 670 GTX. The 660Ti was just out and it underperformed the 7950 consistently. Now after 7-8 months nVidia has done a good job of tweaking their drivers for it, so they pretty much trade blows. One does better in games x, y, z, while the other does better in games a, b, c. I don't think you could go wrong with either. From what I've seen ATI/AMD silicon seems to overclock a little better, but that's always a crapshoot and it comes down to the cooling on the card you buy. Even though ATI/AMD changed their driver releases to be more like the model that nVidia uses (reactionary rather than WHQL every month), I still give the edge to nVidia on this one. They just seem to be quicker on the draw. nVidia has a closer relationship with game developers and are quite good at having driver releases for day one of a released game. Especially with their "The Way It's Meant to Be Played" initiative.

Then there's PhysX, if that is something that sways you, and there are certainly more games supporting it than there were a few years back, then nVidia may be your best choice. Personally I'd like to see a more open standard based around OpenCL adopted by the game industry so that both camps can stand on equal footing. Kudos to nVidia for seizing the opportunity by buying Ageia and capitalize on and market in game physics, but I think it's time that PhysX goes away in favor of something open.

So I've thrown a lot at you, but it really comes to features, price, and each camps strengths and weaknesses. It's really a shame that the release schedule for new cards has slowed down so much with this generation. It's allowed them to keep prices pretty high. Well it's good for them, not so good for us. Do a little research on both comparing the performance of each in games you are interested to play.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I've looked up benchmarks and reviews and stuff, and all (or most) of them say that the 7950 is the way to go. It's cheaper and overclocks better that the 670. I think that sounds like a strong answer to choose the 7950 over the 670, but i haven't researched too heavily on this and i may be wrong but it appears that the 7950 is a better choice. I'm not exactly sure if PhysX is all worth it, sure it may be used in more games in the future but it the difference of prices between the 670 and 7950 and the performance boost of the PhysX don't really balance out the price difference. Oh also, I will be playing games like BF3, Crysis 3 etc., so is one or the other better for those games?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually i've been looking up 7870s and 7950s and the 7870s are very close in performance to the 7950s like only a 10% increase for an extra $60-$70. I'm second guessing what to choose and now it appears like the 7870 is better. I just don't know what to do and i keep changing my mind and i'm not sure what brand to choose, so can someone just help me and give me a definite answer on what to do? I plan on overclocking, depending on how hard it is to overclock, and I want to run at 1080p at good fps on high settings.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Well from all I've read, the 670 is considerably faster than the HD 7950, in fact the 670 is nearly as fast as the 680. Whether the extra money is worth it to you is really up for you to decide. The 660Ti is closer to the HD 7950. As for the 7870 being close enough to the performance of the HD 7950, again that would be up to you to decide.

As for PhysX being of value, I believe that games that support it make a compelling argument in it's favor. Borderlands 2 supports PhysX and from all I've read and the screenshots, it looks great with PhysX enabled. It only adds to the immersion, it doesn't change the gameplay mechanics. So it's up to you whether you think it's worth it and swing you nVidia's way.

For a broad stroke check out www.gpuboss.com and compare your cards that your interested in. Now it doesn't give exact games it's tested. Like I said it's broad strokes. It takes into consideration, power consumption, compute abilities, gaming, and synthetic benchmarks.

Again, I haven't given you a "get this card cause it's uber" answer. Picking PC gaming hardware is a highly personalized thing. In fact it can be a very fanboy thing. It's very difficult to find someone who is only interested in pure performance and features rather than the maker of the GPU. If I were personally buying today and I had the money, I'd get the 670 or the 7970. If not it would be down to the 7950 or the 660 Ti. For me, that's as much compromise that I'd be willing to make. If I didn't have the money for my second tier price range, I'd save more money until I could afford it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I might get a 670 depending on the cost. I see now that the 670 is better than the 7950, i'm just wondering because on newegg the 670 comes with a $150 in game coupon and the 7950 comes with Crysis 3 and Bioshock. I plan on playing games like Crysis 3 and Bioshock and I don't think the $150 in game coupon applies to those games or games like BF3 or Tomb Raider. So I can get a 670 for $320 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133452&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID= - but i'm thinking the $150 in-game coupon vs the two games would be a deal breaker for me. If i could get a 670 with the two games it would be perfect but I don't think it works that way. So i guess i'm still leaning towards the 7950.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think i'm probably just going to go with the 660 ti power edition. It has two fans, its good for overclocking, it's very close to the 7950 if not beating it, and has PhysX and whatever else to boost it and give it more performance in future games. I think i can get over the two games and the $150 in game coupon thing, it doesn't seem to be that huge of a factor and i might just sell it once i get it or something idk. I don't want to really get a 670, it's better than the 660 ti but to get a good one i need to spend almost $400 and i don't think it's all worth it. So if you could tell me if going with the 660 ti would be a good plan or if you have any other options or angles i didn't look at it might help me make a definite decision.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yeah I think the 660 Ti is an excellent card for the money. After about $300-$350 you get diminishing returns in terms of performance / $. When I bought my HD 7950, had the 660 Ti been out a little longer and showing it could match the HD 7950, I would have gotten it. I've already said if I had the money I would have gotten the 670. So we are / were both constrained by our budgets. The 660 Ti is as far down as I would go though. If you are at all interested in playing 1080p with decent settings, this is the basement for most games. Even with the 660 Ti running at 1080p, you may have to tread lightly with AA to keep the other detail settings up. As we are now seeing, the industry has finally realized their mistake with looking at a purely average FPS angle for game performance. I am looking forward to more websites looking at the frametimes and how much the frametimes vary from the average.

I think you will be happy with your purchase (660 Ti if that's the way you go). There's no guarantees on how long this card will service you. You may find that the games released toward the end of this year make you want to upgrade, or you might get a year and a half out of it, who knows. Let us know when you have all your parts assembled, interested to see what you think about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just had a look at the in game coupon from nVidia. At TigerDirect it's $50 not $150, but if it's the same thing, I'm sure you wouldn't be interested. The games shown are free-to-play games. Hawken, World of Tanks and PlanetSide 2. So you get money to spend in those free games so you can customize it. I haven't played any of them (although Hawken looks cool), but if the purchasable items unbalance the game in the favor of those that buy them, I wouldn't want to play. One, it's no fun beating someone if it wasn't skill that did it, that's why I've never understood cheaters. Two, getting beat by someone because they have deeper pockets than you, really it's the flipside of number one. So if I were you, I certainly wouldn't let that factor into my purchasing decision. On the other hand, ATI/AMD's offer is worth considering if the games offered are games you want to play and you don't already have them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The 660 ti and the 7950 are so close in performance i think I'll probably just go with the 7950 because of the games i get with it. I'll most likely the MSI 7950 Twin Frozr card because it seems to be the best card for my money. Well I think I pretty much decided on the 7950, so now i'm just wondering if I should stay with the FX-6300 or go for the 8350. I don't really want to do any serious upgrading until after a couple years. So would it make a significant difference in FPS to get the 8350. I might be able to still squeeze an 8350 and the 7950 into my $900 budget but i might have to spend a little more but i'm not sure if spending like $50 more would make a significant difference in performance or if i should just keep my setup with the FX-6300. (I'll most likely be upgrading to the new Steamroller CPUs in the future or whatever is after that, i'm not sure). Oh and I'll be sure to upload pictures and say how my build went when i get it, I'm planning on buying the parts around Easter time to get some good deals off newegg.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Well it's good that you picked a graphics card. As for the CPU, I think you know the answer. The FX 8350 will outperform the FX 6300. Not because it has two more cores, because as I indicated earlier virtually no games today will utilize 6 cores let alone 8. The FX 8350 will perform better because it's clocked 500MHz faster. The downfall to that is you're going to have significantly more power use, and more heat. If you want the same performance (in gaming mind you), you could overclock the FX 6300 and still probably use less power and put out less heat. However the performance delta is going to be insignificant either way. Theoretically based on clockspeed, not # of cores, the difference could be as high as 14%. In all practicality, the difference is likely to be much less than that. Now to be clear this information is based on games, not applications. Video editing, content creation, 3D animation, or any application that can efficiently use up to 8 cores will certainly result in the FX 8350 outperforming the FX 6300 by a fairly significant margin. However you indicated when you created this thread that your interest was in gaming.

Hope that helps. Good luck. Very interested to see how it turns out.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok thanks for the feedback, I'll go with the FX-6300 still. So I was just wondering if going with a GPU that's twice the price of the CPU is a good way to go. I see a lot of builds that have their GPU and CPU at the same price points. Now is that just because of them using their computers for different things than gaming? Because it seems to me that spending more on the GPU is the way to go, but i see people not doing that and i don't know why, and it leads me to question my build? So can you give me clarification that my build is the way to go because i'm sorta confused about that. This is also where i'm at with my build - http://pcpartpicker.com/p/LGLA - hope it looks good :) (I didn't put a monitor in for the sake of simplicity)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think you'll be CPU constrained by the FX 6300. One thing about CPU bottlenecks is as long as your getting playable framerates at the bottleneck, you just pile on the detail settings until you become GPU constrained.

One thing I discovered reading another thread is that ARMA 2 and 3 are very CPU bound. I have never played these games, but apparently due to their massive maps and realistic ballistic calculation, even the FX 4100 struggles. However from the research I've done, it doesn't sound like it's well optimized for multi-threading, meaning throwing more cores at it doesn't help. It seems that having faster more efficient cores is better than having more less efficient cores.

As a side note, I checked your parts list and I only see one thing I would change. I know I discouraged you from multi-GPU, but it still doesn't hurt to give yourself that option just in case. Your choice of motherboard may limit your experience if you ever go that way. The 970 only supports CrossFire in X16X4, it doesn't split it to X8X8. Now if this chipset was PCIe 3.0, this wouldn't be such a big deal, but it maybe a little bandwidth limited on the X4 slot at PCIe 2.0. My suggestion is spend a little more money and get something with a 990X or 990FX chipset. The 990X will give you X8X8 and the 990FX will give you X16X16 or X8X8X8X8 if you wanted to get ridiculous. Don't quote me on this, but I think that the 990FX also supports SLI, but I could be wrong here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok thanks, I'll go with the Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 then. It's pretty much that same board, but black and with the 990FX chipset. So in your opinion would this be the best gaming build for $900, I just want to check for sure that i'm getting the best deal i can get and the most performance for my buck. I don't mind going with Intel or anything, it's your opinion i just want an unbiased opinion on what you think would be the best $900 computer build. So besides the motherboard i think i'm just about done, O also do you think the 212 EVO is a good CPU cooler also, i've read good reviews on it but i don't know if water cooling would be an good option or to go with a 212+ or something?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You already know my feelings about going Intel, but you are getting plenty of computer for $900. You should be happy with it. I know it's difficult when you have a budget, you want to get as much computer for it as you can, because you know have to make compromises to keep inside that budget.

The 990FX should give you a little more options down the road.

As for the Hyper 212 EVO, I don't have any personal experience with it, but I've read good things about it. I bought my son a Hyper 212 Plus for his system when I built it in 2009 and in my opinion, it's the best cooler in that price range. There are better coolers out there of course, but your going to spend twice as much. I imagine that the EVO will be every bit as good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Should i go with the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 or the ASRock 990FX extreme4? I want the UEFI BIOS that comes with the ASRock board, but i kinda want some of the USB features that Gigabyte has, like the always on USB port and the 3 or 4x more power for a USB port or whatever it is. I'm leaning towards the ASRock because i'll be overclocking and i have never overclocked before and i think it would be easier on the ASRock, but i'm a little unsure. And do you think i should go with a 650W or a 750W for a PSU, or just whatever is a good deal, because i also can't really make a definite decision on what would be best.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom